On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andy, > > It is interested how you call for transparency but don't support this > initiative for more transparency. The NIR's should be subject to the same > level of transparency and reporting that APNIC is being asked to do. > That may be the case but that's an issue for the members of those NIRs. It's not at all appropriate for APNIC to ask any member for full details of their finances or dictate how they operate apart from some aspects of addressing policy. > Especially if there are calls to reduce the fees charged to NIR's. I > think the community needs to see financial reporting to know whether to > support such a call. > > The call may be completely valid, but how can it be evaluated without > context? Because honestly, if an NIR is doing well, the call for fee > reductions are a bit inappropriate. > > APNIC is a membership organisation created for the benefit of its members. And it's entirely appropriate for the members to ask for details of how their membership fees are spent. And I'm very happy that if the APNIC fees are spent on activities that provide value to the membership in areas related to IP addressing then they should stay as they are. The trouble is I simply don't know. I do know that RIPE provides this information to its members and that their annual fees are considerably lower for anyone holding more than around /20 of IPv4. Is there a link between these two things?
_______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
